Re: Next release - when?

[Max Berger]

Dear Fop Devs,

I think we are mixing two ideas here:

One idea (1) was to release 0.95rc, and then two weeks later 0.95

The other idea (2) is to release 0.95 and call it 0.95rc instead of 0.95beta.

(1) I think makes sense. It would mean after releasing the rc there
would be a short phase (2 weeks) where only bugfixed could be
commited. This is a good idea anyways. +1

(2) The traditional dev steps are alpha - beta - final. Some companies
use Release Candidate to make their beta-phase sound nicer. I strongly
disagree of the use of this word without actually meaning it - as long
as this is not a feature-complete version of fop 1.0 I'd vote -1 for
calling it rc.

Btw: Other projects, such as GNOME and eclipse have a strong
time-based release plan. Maybe this would be a good idea for the fop
project as well? It would give users (and plugin developers) more
certainty about whats going on.



Max


2008/1/11, J.Pietschmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> >> So, what about a 0.95 beta?
> >
> > Like Chris, I'd prefer calling it a release candidate, but +1 to the
> > general idea.
>
> I like the idea of an release candidate too.
>
> J.Pietschmann
>

Bug report for Fop [2008/01/13]

[bugzilla]

+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID   |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned|
| | OPN=ReopenedVER=Verified(Skipped Closed/Resolved)   |
| |   +-+
| |   | Severity: BLK=Blocker CRI=CriticalMAJ=Major |
| |   |   MIN=Minor   NOR=Normal  ENH=Enhancement   |
| |   |   +-+
| |   |   | Date Posted |
| |   |   |  +--+
| |   |   |  | Description  |
| |   |   |  |  |
| 1063|New|Nor|2001-03-21|fop does not handle large fo files|
| 3280|New|Nor|2001-08-27|PCL Renderer doesn't work |
| 3824|New|Blk|2001-09-25|MIF option with tables|
| 4030|New|Nor|2001-10-08|IOException creating Postscript with graphics on S|
| 4535|New|Maj|2001-10-31|PCL renderer 1.13 not rendering SVG   |
| 5010|New|Enh|2001-11-21|Better error reporting needed |
| 5124|New|Maj|2001-11-27|fo:block-container is not rendered properly using |
| 6305|New|Nor|2002-02-07|Using fo:table-and-caption results in empty output|
| 6427|New|Enh|2002-02-13|Adding additional Type 1 fonts problem|
| 6997|New|Nor|2002-03-09|[PATCH] Row-spanned row data breaks over a page wi|
| 7241|New|Nor|2002-03-19|keep-with-previous, keep-with-next only working on|
| 8003|Ass|Maj|2002-04-12|FopImageFactory never releases cached images  |
| 8463|New|Nor|2002-04-24|SVG clipping in external.fo example doc when rende|
| 8767|Ass|Min|2002-05-03|Image and solid colour background rectangle sizes |
| 9379|New|Nor|2002-05-24|MIF Renderer generates incorrect MIF code |
|10379|New|Enh|2002-07-01|Improvement to FOP Classloader|
|12494|New|Nor|2002-09-10|fop produces pdf file which Acrobat Reader refuses|
|12610|New|Enh|2002-09-13|[PATCH] onLoad Action for PDF documents or how to |
|13586|New|Blk|2002-10-13|fop will not work on linux alpha because jre is br|
|13734|New|Nor|2002-10-17|Hyphenation does not work correctly on long string|
|14248|New|Enh|2002-11-05|51-page FO example, could be added to the samples |
|14352|New|Enh|2002-11-07|It would be nice if FOP could be plugged into popu|
|14356|New|Nor|2002-11-07|*NOT* embedding TrueTypeFont in PDF causes Acrobat|
|14419|New|Enh|2002-11-10|Implement SourceResolver, Image Resolver  |
|14504|New|Cri|2002-11-13|Pagebreak in cell spanning multiple rows create fa|
|14529|New|Nor|2002-11-13|SVG url references do not work|
|14679|New|Enh|2002-11-19|Pluggable renderers   |
|14924|New|Nor|2002-11-28|Table disappears when it ends when the page ends  |
|15020|New|Enh|2002-12-03|Reuse of fo-tree  |
|16017|Opn|Nor|2003-01-13|Jpeg's and the PDF Serializer |
|16130|New|Nor|2003-01-15|PS-Renderer emits lots of redundant moveto's  |
|16156|New|Nor|2003-01-16|0.20.5rc SVG example does not work|
|16713|New|Nor|2003-02-03|Hyphenation error in tables   |
|17369|New|Nor|2003-02-25|Footnote duplication  |
|17380|New|Nor|2003-02-25|Batik Component will not recognize fe SVG elem|
|17921|New|Nor|2003-03-12|Kerning is broken for standard fonts  |
|18292|New|Nor|2003-03-24|24 bit PNG not displayed correctly|
|18801|New|Nor|2003-04-08|"visibility" property is not implemented  |
|19228|New|Blk|2003-04-22|[PATCH] Child LayoutContext is null in certain cir|
|19341|Ver|Nor|2003-04-26|leader doesn't work since 0.20.5.rc2  |
|19695|New|Enh|2003-05-06|[PATCH] Allow fox:destination as child of fox:outl|
|19717|New|Enh|2003-05-07|Lets add support for JimiClassesPro.zip to build.x|
|19769|Ass|Enh|2003-05-08|Indefinite page size is not implemented   |
|20280|Ass|Enh|2003-05-27|text-align and text-align-last only partially impl|
|20407|New|Enh|2003-06-02|[PATCH] Configure image caching using the configur|
|20827|New|Enh|2003-06-17|Derive other font styles and weights from normal T|
|21265|Opn|Nor|2003-07-02|referencing a custom font (TTF or Adobe Type 1) fo|
|21905|New|Nor|2003-07-26|large list-item-label bleeds into following block |
|21982|New|Maj|2003-07-30|NullPointer Exception in LazyFont with embedded fo|
|22450|New|Maj|2003-08-15|Unterminated iteration in JPEGReader class|
|22627|Opn|Nor|2003-08-21|Update mirror/download page HEADER & README (was [|
|24148|

Re: Next release - when?

[The Web Maestro]

On Jan 12, 2008 8:42 AM, The Web Maestro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 2:28 AM, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> > Refactoring the website? I've already been told several times that it
> > was difficult to find its way on it. Last time I mainly rephrased a few
> > sentences and removed broken links, but didn't do much more. And
> > I didn't even touch the 'Development' tab which is progressively
> > becoming out-of-date.
> >
> > Should I add that this is not a trivial task and that I'll have no time
> > for that in the next couple of months? :-P
>
> I'd be happy to help with the web site. It's not perfectly clear to me
> what else it needs, but I have some ideas. In a nutshell, 'Home'
> should include 'user' related general stuff (all the stuff it has,
> plus using FOP, upgrading, running, etc.--all the content from Version
> 0.94). The Develop should contain all that it has, plus any 'FOP
> Trunk' specific stuff. I don't what that is ATM... on first glance the
> nav for 'Version 0.94' and 'FOP Trunk' are identical nav (except
> V-0.94 has Release Notes, Changes & Known Issues).
>
> I imagine a good start would be to remove all tabs except for 'Home'
> and 'Development'
> - 'Version 0.93' just goes away
> - 'Version Trunk' content moves to 'Home'
> - I think 'FOP 0.94' just goes away. I don't see anything different
> between the nav links in the 'FOP Trunk' and 'Version 0.94' tabs--if
> there is, that content should move to 'Development'. I'll run `diff`
> on the fop/0.94/ and fop/trunk/ directories to see what's different.
> If anyone has an specific ideas on what's different, that'd help
> greatly.
>
> We could retain the 'Home', 'Version xxx', 'FOP Trunk', 'Development'
> tab structure, but I think less tabs may be better now that we've
> retired 'Version 0.20.5', during which time, I believe the multiple
> tab structure was necessary.

Here's my first stab at a refactored FOP site:

http://people.apache.org/~clay/fop_refactored/

Of course, I'm open to suggestions.

In a nutshell, here's what I did:
- rm -R 0.93/
- rm -R 0.94/
- mv trunk/* ../
- modify site.xml
- change links to /0.94/* & /trunk/* to /*
- check for broken links

I'll likely need to do the above again when we're ready to deploy.
Notice, I didn't do an `svn delete` on any of the above, since I'm
hoping for feedback first. I'll likely do the SVN equivalents to the
above when we're ready for primetime. If that time is now, I could do
it fairly quickly.

I'm also considering updating the Forrest build process to use Forrest
0.8 instead of Forrest 0.7.

If anyone's interested, here're zip'd versions of the site.xml & tabs.xml files:
http://people.apache.org/~clay/fop_refactored/site.xml.zip
http://people.apache.org/~clay/fop_refactored/tabs.xml.zip

Web Maestro Clay
-- 
Regards,

The Web Maestro
-- 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 
My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
- HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet

Re: Next release - when?

[J.Pietschmann]

Jeremias Maerki wrote:

So, what about a 0.95 beta?


Like Chris, I'd prefer calling it a release candidate, but +1 to the
general idea.


I like the idea of an release candidate too.

J.Pietschmann